Trump's imaginary "War"

[Syne]

Strangely I rarely follow the actions of the presidents I really support. Call it an inherent faith in their ability to govern. But if this was all goin on back then, then why did no Republicans complain? Was the "liberal media" underreporting it? Could be. But if I didn't say anything about it, and you didn't either, then who's to blame? That I'm bringing up willy-nilly missile strikes with Trump now is what I am responsible for. And I don't think I can be held responsible for not having noticed it before when nobody else noticed it.

Blind faith.
Here's contemporary news, from some sources you should trust:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ar-110863/
Republicans: Against a Syrian strike now that Obama is for it?
Lawmakers raise concerns about Obama's drone policies
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013...st-it.html
Even current House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies: https://jeffries.house.gov/2013/09/04/ny...-on-syria/
I could go on. Plenty of people, on your political side, noticed it.

So you just didn't care what a Democrat does and are hyper-vigilant when it's a Republican. Clear partisan double-standard.

[Magical Realist]

So you just didn't care what a Democrat does and are hyper-vigilant when it's a Republican.

No moron. Let's go over this again:

"Strangely I don't really follow the actions of the presidents I support. Call it an inherent faith in their ability to govern." Got it?

Hmmm...newsstories from 2014. Was I even here online back then posting politically?

[Syne]

Yes, blind faith, just as I already said.

[Yazata]

I think that it's odd that Trump's cruise missile attack on ISIS-associated jihadists in northern Nigeria has come under attack from Democrats, while Barack Obama freely launched drone strikes all around the world without a peep.

Strangely I rarely follow the actions of the presidents I really support. Call it an inherent faith in their ability to govern. But if this was all goin on back then, then why did no Republicans complain?

I think that some did but most didn't. Probably because most agreed with Obama doing it. We agreed with his choice of targets (radical Islamists trying to overthrow their countries and install theocracies in a whole variety of African and Middle Eastern countries). We all remembered 9-11 and radical Islam's declaration of war against the United States.

Was the "liberal media" underreporting it?

They were, assuming they really opposed it. If they really opposed it but weren't reporting on it, then presumably they thought that protecting Barack Obama politically was more important than the principle of the thing.

Could be. But if I didn't say anything about it, and you didn't either, then who's to blame?

I generally-speaking support both Obama and Trump launching these kind of strikes, so from my point of view there isn't much blame in either case. I didn't oppose Obama doing it and I don't oppose Trump doing it either.

But if we really do oppose these sort of strikes, then why remain silent when our own party does it, and then throw a rhetorical conniption fit when the opposing party does it? That looks to me like it is motivated by political partisanship ahead of principle.

[C C]

[...] Strangely I rarely follow the actions of the presidents I really support. Call it an inherent faith in their ability to govern. [...] Was the "liberal media" underreporting it?

They were, assuming they really opposed it. If they really opposed it but weren't reporting on it, then presumably they thought that protecting Barack Obama politically was more important than the principle of the thing.

Alternet did routinely criticize Obama's drone strikes. One might assume that other far-left publications did, too. But looking over the material of Mother Jones from back then, they were somewhat indifferent to middling about it, or even celebrating it like the mainstream. So maybe not.

(alternet) Wall Street Journal cheers on Obama's drone war on Pakistan: "Unmanned bombs away"
https://www.alternet.org/2009/06/whats_t..._drone_war

"The WSJ editors descend from their thrones to mingle among the mortals and teach us the error of our ways..."

[Magical Realist]

I don't in principle object to taking out proven bad guys like Al Qaeda or Isis. But what I don't like is changing the descriptor status of people just so you can kill them and make your President look like some war hero before the world. The idea of the "war on terrorism" (and by extension on "terrorists") came out of the Bush administration in response to 911, which granted a much freer use of deadly force for our forces in trying to prevent terrorism. "Terrorist", similar to "fascists" and "communists", thus became one of those generic placeholders for hypothetically evil murderous beings who have no human rights and should be exterminated at all costs. It's a slippery slope as demonstrated by Trump in using it to designate Antifa protesters as "domestic terrorists" and drug smugglers as "narco-terrorists", as well as in the CIA "water boarding" controversy of the early 2000s. I don't like that 1984-ish newspeak that can make the killing/torture of unknown human beings seem totally justified, no questions asked, simply because of our label for them. We have to draw a line somewhere, and I'm drawing it here. And we have to do better.

[Syne]

Again, you talk about slippery slopes but pass straight over Obama, linking Bush to Trump as if there was no Democrat escalation in between. That drips with partisan bias.

[Magical Realist]

Fallacy of "whataboutism" again.

[Syne]

Why can't you manage the slightest criticism of Obama for the exact same thing?
It's just all those evil Republicans, huh?

[Magical Realist]

Why can't you manage the slightest criticism of Obama for the exact same thing?

Why should I? It happened 11 years ago. What's the point of complaining now?